#I've also seen this discussion in Germany

[coimbrabertone]

Offtopic Offseason #5 - CoimbraBertone and the Indiana Jones Blogpost.

So, I watched the first three Indiana Jones movies for the first time these last few weeks. Those being Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, and The Last Crusade. Also, before that, I was watching my friend Andy play through the video game, Indiana Jones and the Great Circle. I have thoughts.

Plus, the Super Bowl was last weekend and that's kinda an unavoidable black hole devouring anything else that could've happened that weekend, so there isn't much racing news to discuss right now.

Indycar aired some commercials during it which hopefully draw people in, but until we get to St. Pete for the first race, it's hard to say how effective they were.

So, onto Indiana Jones.

I liked them. Raiders of the Lost Ark and Last Crusade are both great movies, Temple of Doom isn't as good, but it still has plenty of iconic moments and I enjoyed it well enough.

My first impression was honestly...wow, I've seen so much references to this stuff. Like there were moments I knew were from Indiana Jones, like the giant boulder chasing Indy, opening the Ark and it melting the Nazi faces, and the minecart chase from Temple, but there other things I didn't realize.

Like in Family Guy, Road to Germany, they do the whole escape the plane in a raft thing, with Stewie even making fun of one of Willie's lines. I didn't know that was from Indiana Jones. The motorcycle chase in that episode is probably a reference to Last Crusade as well, albeit a bit less 1 to 1.

So yeah, iconic movies that I've seen referenced a lot, and now I finally understand those references.

So, Raiders of the Lost Ark...

I liked Belloq as a villain. His Egypt clothes with the way his hair looked kept making me think of Alain Prost even though objectively he doesn't look all that much like Prost, but there's where my brain went. I like that he's a different kind of evil than the Nazis around him - he doesn't have a cause, he's just self-interested and wants to get one over on Jones - but he is still very much evil.

Toht is another fun character because he's just so ridiculous. The coat hanger scene made me burst out laughing.

Colonel Dietrich is probably the flattest of the villains, but I get that they needed more of a straight-up Wehrmacht guy to be the direct threat that neither Belloq nor Toht could really be.

As for the heroic characters, I have to admit, with everything I heard about Marion from watching the game and reading up on the movies a bit, she is not at all what I was expecting. For some reason I kinda thought she was gonna be a non-action rich girl who is the daughter of a rich gentleman type - and in fairness, Ravenwood does seem like it would be an old money name - but instead she's a lot more of a rougher and more confrontational character.

And I suppose that is more interesting.

Sallah's fun, John-Rhys Davies has a great voice, and I was happy to see him back in Last Crusade.

Some of the effects are very dated and the sounds - especially the punch sounds - are as well, but it's an old movie so what are you gonna do? I accepted that as a relic of the time and enjoyed the movie in spite of that.

Something dated that's a bit harder to forgive is Temple of Doom.

Let's start with the positives: Lao Che's club is a lot of fun. I think his club is a reused set from Return of the Jedi because with how white and smooth it is, along with the seating bowl we see in one of the shots, it reminds me a lot of the Mon Calamari cruises from Episode VI. I could be wrong about that, but they were filmed a year apart and Lucas literally named it Club Obi-Wan, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if the whole thing is a redressed Star Wars set.

Willie's a bit grating. There's no way around that, I'm sorry.

Short Round though...yeah, he has a few annoying moments, but I actually found him endearing. The ways that he looks up and mimics Indy - sorry, Dr. Jones - are fun, and it's nice to see Indy cares about him too.

The portrayal of India though...oof.

Spielberg and Lucas have apparently said that the whole dinner scene with the eels and eyeballs and monkey brains and all that is supposed to be a ploy to scare off Indy and the British officer dude, but...they did not do a good job of conveying that at all. It just feels like over the top orientalism.

Same thing with the Thuggee cult in general. Mola Ram's costume is all over the place and with his skull helmet off, that red paint on his forehead feels a lot more like the other type of Indian. It's like a storm of foreign culture cliches thrown together at random and it's pretty damn jarring. They even got the Maharaja torturing Indy with a voodoo doll which...okay then, I guess we really are just throwing anything and everything at this, huh?

From what I understand their portrayal of Kali is also completely off.

There's also a lot of brown face in that movie. The late Pat Roach was playing the slavemaster, for instance.

Then making the British Army show up at the end to save Indy & co...sheesh. No wonder this movie got banned in India for awhile.

Still, if you can get past all that and see it as a product of its time, it's a fun enough movie. It's the weakest of the trilogy though.

Onto Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Harrison Ford and Sean Connery, what else do you need?

No seriously, that's it. It's good, watch it.

...

...

...

Okay fine, I'll talk about it.

I like this one a lot. I know Raiders is the classic one that everyone loves, but this one might be my favorite.

Venice, Austria, Berlin, Antioch, down to Petra in Jordan...it's a lot of fun set locations and set pieces. I really enjoyed Elsa as the "Indy girl" of this movie, I really enjoyed the banter back and forth between Henry Sr. and Indiana, and I think the Nazis in this movie are just great antagonists.

They look evil as fuck, they have the Hugo Boss fit on fleek, Vogel is a great villain, the modified World War I tank was a great set piece, and we have plenty of old car porn in this one - particularly the old Rolls Royce, which is not, in fact, a Phantom II - so what's not to like?

Well, Donovan probably goes down a bit too easy. I know that these movies are big on the whole villains are destroyed for trying to harness a power they cannot understand, but he does die pretty quickly and pretty stupidly. I guess the Vogel fight was pretty long, so a long Donovan fight probably would've bogged the ending down a lot, but it was a bit disappointing to see him easily duped into killing himself.

Elsa's end, meanwhile, i thought was fitting. She couldn't let go of her obsession, and in the end, the grail's spell got to her. It almost got to Indy too, but then Henry gave him the fatherly love which is what he really wanted. And yeah, that's a bit schlocky, but who cares? it's nice and meaningful.

So yeah, none of them are perfect movies, but I enjoyed them a lot.

The Great Circle fits in among the movies quite nicely, I think. Gina fits as another "Indy girl" and is probably my favorite when adding her in to the classic movies, and Troy Baker does such a great job as Indy that even Harrison Ford gave him his blessing.

Plus ending on karate fighting a Nazi on the top of Noah's Ark is exactly the type of goofy shit these movies would come up with and I mean that in the best way possible.

Oh, one other thing I wanted to yap about: there are a lot of scenes in these movies where the guns are very clearly not firing anything, and again, I get it, old movie, but wow, sometimes it's really obvious. There was a bit in Last Crusade where Indy thrashed around an MP40 that wasn't doing anything, and it straight up took me a second to realize they were trying to show him shooting.

Old movies gonna old movie.

I'm gonna watch the next two movies soon, probably this week, but from what I hear, they're not quite up to snuff. Let me know if you guys want my thoughts, otherwise, this is probably gonna be the last Offtopic Offseason for awhile because it's the Daytona 500 this weekend. They'll be a NASCAR race every weekend from now until November, and once NASCAR starts, the likes of MotoGP, F1, and Indycar aren't far behind.

Looking forward to the Henry Jones Jr.polis 500.

[historia-jaeger]

Avoid the obvious. - The Jeankasa discussion

I'm basing my contribution on this article here because it picks up on the theories I've already heard and has a few new ones up its sleeve. ~*~ The first big discussion sparked this picture:

Mikasa is seen visiting Eren's grave, with a man and child with her. Judging by his clothes and hairstyle, one could assume that this man is Jean. The Child is adoptet-Theory: The first thing that comes to mind when I see Mikasa with a man and children is: She is married and has children. But there are also people who actually believe that Mikasa got the baby from Historia's orphanage... I can't really refute it. So I'll leave it like that.

This scene has now been animated in a fairly small format. But you can see the color of the hair and the color of the suit. Here, too, it is easy to conclude that it is Jean.

The Man is to tall to be Jean-Theory: Based on the second scene, in which the man runs across the hills with Mikasa, he is estimated to be a little taller than Jean. You can see from the grave scene in the manga, that the man is exactly Jean's size. Especially because the man appears taller in one scene, because the landscape is sloping and he is therefore walking on a higher level like Mikasa and therefore appears a bit taller.

Source There are two different versions of the scene where Mikasa lies in the grave. In the manga, she lies in a bed as lilies. she has her hands folded in front of her chest. In the anime, Mikasa wears a ring on her ring finger and her grave is made of roses. These same roses are also on her chest. The flower-theory: The flower theory includes two versions. The one with the white lily and the one with the four roses. According to the "White Lily Theory", these symbolize Mikasas purity. Says that she hasn't slept with any other man and will remain loyal to Eren until death. Qoute: They are chosen for both weddings and funerals and symbolize the renewal of the soul. They can represent purity, commitment and rebirth, so they are often used to express compassion. - Source To make it short. Lilies are grave flowers. That´s why they´re put in Mikasa's grave and not to highlight her chastity.

Four roses means "Nothing will come between us", so Mikasa will love no one exept Eren. Okay. Is this is the right meaning, as I found out myself. Source But I see one or two Roses und two other Blooms on this Grave...

Source

Besides, you never know what colors the roses were. This is also important to know. Therefore I would rule out this theory. The ring of purity-theory: Mikasa wears a ring on her ring finger that looks like a wedding ring. But opponents of Jeankasa claim it would is a chastity ring. Unfortunately, that can't work, because Attack on Titan obviously takes place in Germany. The last date I could record was the year 850. Source

The “True Love Waits” movement, which also included the chastity ring, only became active in Germany in the 21st century. So in our current era. Source

The pioneer of the chastity ring was the chastity belt: There is no clear evidence that the chastity belt was already known in the Middle Ages. It is believed to be a myth that was invented and spread in the Baroque period to paint the picture of the “Dark Ages”. Other stories say that the chastity belt was invented by the Doges of Venice in order to effectively collect tax debts from prostitutes. Source

So it's pretty unlikely that Mikasa wears a chastity ring. In that case it would probably be a wedding ring. The Hairstyle-Theory: It is often said that you can't even know that it is Jean, because many people have that hairstyle. For example, Armin, who is often portrayed as Mikasa's grief companion. To underline this, antis often use such images:

Source In one picture Armin's hair is flying back and in the other picture Armin has actually pinned his hair back. But let's be honest, folks. When you have two people to choose from. Jean and Armin. Who will you choose then? Someone who has this hairstyle naturally or someone who doesn't usually have this hairstyle except in a picture?

Especially because Armin must have had a really big growth spurt to be Jean's size. But fine. Let's play a round of "Choose the Color":

All in all, it also depends a little on the exposure. But which hair color is closer to that of the man at the grave? Armin's or Jean's? The man's hair color is ash blonde. A color that not everyone in Attack on Titan has either. So... It can't be Armin but obiously Jean. ~*~ Other arguments: Jean whould never betray Eren with marrieng Mikasa: Did Jean make such a vow? - No. And I don't need to cite any evidence that Jean was definitely in love with Mikasa. Mikasa only rejected him, because she was in love with Eren and he accepted that too. But Eren is dead. Why shouldn't he be allowed to marry Mikasa? In the AOT-Guidebook it´s stated that Mikasa's martial status is single: When is the book from and how old was Mikasa? Prove please. Mikasa loves Eren because of what is written on Eren's grave, her scarf, because she let herself be buried next to Eren, and so further: I don't understand this concept of "just one or the other". Just because Mikasa loves Jean and has a family with him doesn't mean she has to give up her feelings for Eren. She is still allowed to mourn him, think about him and talk about him with others? I don't understand how things like this are always taken as evidence of "Mikasa only loves Ereh." And Mikasa can be happy without Jean, but she can also be happy with Jean. So why does the obvious always have to be downplayed? WHY Mikasa has to be with no one exept EREN? Her hidden Bandages: Why should the bandages be evidence that Mikasa didn't pass the symbol on them to her children? Maybe she doesn't want to present the symbol to everyone. Maybe she doesn't want to pass it on to her children? Maybe she had already passed it on to her "adopted" children and still covered her arms? How do you know that those in the picture are even bandages?

~*~ It makes sense that Mikasa is married to Jean and has children. Family has always been very important to Mikasa. Especially because she lost her family twice. It was only thanks to Eren that she threw herself into the fight against the Titans. As you could tell from her dream with Eren, she preferred a simple life to fighting. She cut her hair, because Eren wanted it that way. It was supposed to protect her from the Titans. Jean, on the other hand, found this so beautiful about her. Anyone who wasn't struck with blindness could clearly see that Jean was in love with Mikasa and knew that his feelings were not reciprocated. But this certainly changed after Eren's death. Jean also dreamed of having a family with Mikasa and the child in Mikasa's arms looks a lot like a baby.

It is quite logical to conclude from this dream that there is a real wedding. Why would Isayama bother to draw a family when it really isn't a family? Then he could have easily drawn Mikasa alone at Eren's grave. But he didn't. Mikasa is married and the first candidate for a husband would be Jean. Not Armin, not Farmer-Kun or some random guy. JEAN. ~*~ Thanks for reading.

[skitskatdacat63]

Vettonso x Similar Helmets

SV Germany 2012 x FA Monaco 2013: Gold & Dark Red

I think a lot about Vettonso and their mutual relationship witn gold. They're both golden boys, they're both seen lit gold by the sunshine on many podiums throughout the years, both have worn golden boots, and as you can see here: both have worn golden helmets. The parallels in these particular helmets makes me feel insane. Both are: gold with dark red accents, both have their birthplace's coat of arms(Bergstraße and Asturias), both have team animal motifs, and both have symbols to represent their two championships(You by now know the signifigance of the ones on Fernando's helmet, but I think the ones on Seb's are actually a callback to his Formula BMW days when he used to put the smiley stickers on his car for every win.)

And did you know both of these helmets were designed by the same helmet design company? Yep, both of these are JMD helmets. I know JMD helmets are/were pretty popular, but still, there's something to me about Fernando commissioning the same designer that Seb has been using since he was a literal child. Parallels, am I right?

SV Japan 2010 x FA Japan 2023: White with Black & Red

Haha I remember @protocolseben and I discussing this a bit back in September when Fernando's helmet dropped. I honestly think Seb is such an innovator and trailblazer in terms of helmet design, and you can see his influence in helmet design as recently as this past season. I'm not sure if he was the first ever driver to don a matte white helmet with red accents as a representation of the Japanese flag, but it certainly envoked him in my mind when I saw Fernando's!!

I think Fernando's is pretty similar to all of Seb's 2010-2012 Japan helmets but I like this one the most so! I think if Seb wasn't restrained by the Red Bull logo, he def wouldv'e put the red circle where Nando put his so I think Fernando did a really good job, even if unintentionally, at emulating Seb's sense of design.

SV Singapore 2012 x FA Singapore 2012: Sparkly!

Like I said in the one above, it's crazy how much Seb influenced helmet design. He was pretty much the pioneer of sparkly helmets for Singapore, right? It drives me absolutely insane that there's actually pictures of them together in such similar designed helmets. It's kinda funny actually that even though they're pretty deep in the championship fight at this point, and Seb just got one up on Fernando; Fernando is wearing a helmet that is a direct influence from Seb!!! Is that not insane???

Also, Fernando trying to be camp with trying the now in vogue sparkly Singapore helmet, and Seb accidentally completely blew him out of the water with his outrageous light up LED constellation helmet. But god yeah....to have pics of them in matching helmets from this era particuarly makes me emotional ;;;

SV Hungary 2021 x FA 2022: Pink with Dark Blue

I really could've picked any of Seb's 2021 helmets, but I thought this one matched the best with Fernando's main 2021 helmet(with the color pallet.) Also one thing, it's crazy how much control BWT has as a sponsor, I don't think I've ever seen another sponsor go so hard at having a chokehold on individuality. I like that we got pink liveries and pink helmets, but I don't think they should have that much control.

I'm almost kinda sad there wasn't any Miami GP in 2021, because I think that was the only unique helmet Fernando had in 2022. But these match pretty well! Pretty in pink!! It's crazy that their parallels in the 2020s are ongoing even before Fernando actually takes over Seb's seat. Thanks BWT I guess?

SV Abu Dhabi 2022 x FA Abu Dhabi 2022: Fernando's Seb Tribute Helmet

AND HERE WE HAVE THE PIÈCE DE RÉSISTANCE!!! The ultimate conclusion, it literally couldn't get better than this!! This is still unbelievable, like how is this an actual thing that happened!? Fernando intentionally branding his helmet, the only symbol of individuality in F1, with his rival's flag colors, HIS FLAG!!!!! Not to mention the literal "Vettono Best Moments" collage he posted alongside it....and the hand-holding....and everything that happened with them at Abu Dhabi 2022....

But god, after years of incidentally making parallel helmet designs, Fernando decided to officially tie the knot of the red string of fate, and make a helmet directly referencing Seb's. I think it's funny because as I said with two of the previously mentioned ones, those Fernando designs are pretty much inspired by Seb's, and here he is openly making one directly inspired by Seb. I don't really have words for how this actually makes me feel because it's just. Yeah. The most open and clear declaration of love and respect and admiration one could ever make. TO ME.

[hawkins-batman]

This story may be interesting to discuss. Recently I came across a video on tiktok where a muslim girl posted a "heartbreaking" story about how "Noah was my favorite celebrity and I cried so much when I found out he was a zionist and hated muslims.". I opened the comments and aside from traditional Noah hate (ofc) found some who tried to explain that it's all lies, some ppl even attached the link to your post.

I decided to go further and jumped in her dms convincing her that it's not like that yada yada, sent the link to your post, not only bc my heart ached for her at that moment but also bc she was spreading that one 'evolved' lie you talked about. And there were, in fact, people in comments who said "wait, what? He hates muslims??" and I needed that to stop ASAP.

It's been around 2 weeks now but I still can't get this story out of my head and the more I think about it, the more confusing it gets. I mean, if I found out that my favorite celebrity hates my nationality, wouldn't I be doing research out of denial? This girl doesn't even need google now, she can just open her comments or check her dms. 0 reaction. She hasn't even opened my messages.

Digesting all that, I don't even think she ever loved Noah this much. Fuel to the fire, her acc is mostly about mileven endgame and fillie (idk platonic or not). At this point, I just can't buy it all now.

That's the story. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this because damn

The wild thing is, there is a Arab-Muslim girl on TikTok (I won't share her username because she has been harassed to death) who went to the convention in Germany or France and got pictures with Noah. There's several of them on her TikTok.

Not only was Noah very sweet to her and gave her a HUGE hug—he showed up in her comments section on TikTok when she was being dogpiled by (mostly) white Leftists who were calling her a race traitor. He left a really sweet comment and told her he loved her.

So this idea that Noah is someone who hates Muslims or Arabs is just a flat out lie lmao There's demonstrable evidence to the contrary, and he even has Palestinian friends and fans. I shared a supportive comment from one just a few days ago.

I think you hit the nail on the head, though. I doubt this person was ever a big Noah fan. Right now, if you want to go viral on TikTok or Twitter, and you want to do it easily, calling Noah a genocidal, Arab-hating Zionist is an easy way to do it. I've seen it happen one too many times off this site.

For a lot of those people, it's just about clout, attention, and engagement. They don't care if it's true or not. But you did the right thing. Share the correct information, give links to evidence and alternative arguments.

It's all we can do.

[keepthedelta]

since this is the delta help desk, I have come to you once again to dip into your vast swathe of motorsport knowledge.

I've seen a lot of pictures of Nico from his early years in the sport and read a lot of articles where he is described as good looking, handsome, blonde etc and have heard some discussions where pre dts f1 fans have called him the og pretty boy, and charles' predecessor etc. I wanted to understand the cultural hype around Nico in his early years? Like the current f1 fandom is very americanised and charles definitely enjoys the fruits of being good looking. Did Nico have something similar? Like fans emphasizing their love for Nico because of how pretty he is, giving him an almost pop idol sort of worship. I understand that f1 had a smaller fan base back then and it was more men that women probably so this sort of talk was probably frowned upon. But did Nico drive people un poco loco, essentially? Would love your thoughts.

Side note: the nico pfp is soooo darling and the photoset you reblogged of him carrying his little daughter on his shoulder where she is holding onto his ear with her chubby baby hand...... sewercideeeee

oh this is kind of a hard one. i feel like the most accurate and honest answer i can give you is no. and yes. which is very irritating of me, but bear with me.

the culture around f1 was massively different back then, both when nico first started and when he left. the audience was smaller and mostly male, and information about the drivers and their personalities was extremely limited, mostly due to FOM rules regulating what behind the scenes stuff teams and drivers could post. most of the "fun" content and insight that teams can do now was only done through the broadcasters like sky, the bbc, espn etc.

the other main source of information about drivers i would say was tabloids. and certain drivers like jenson button, kimi raikkonen and to a slightly lesser (or different) extent lewis hamilton became very famous because of them. michael schumacher was a god of racing, and lewis had the whole young prodigy dating an american popstar thing, but even before jenson and kimi won their championships they were very well known for drinking and partying and dating lots and lots of very beautiful women, some famous, some not. it was a bit more rockstar than popstar i guess, where the extremes of the life, the heavy drinking, the hard partying, the fast driving, the beautiful women were seen as aspirational for the mostly male audience.

and nico never really fit into that. he did the drinking and partying, but away from the cameras usually, and his awkwardness and resting bitch face made people think that he was boring and stuck up. he was also so steadfastly loyal to vivian, who seems like his only real relationship (they began dating at 18 and people who worked with nico back in the junior formulas said that he never brought girls round other than her) in an era where cheating was so widespread and normalised that some fans speculated about his sexuality, suggesting that vivian was a beard and he was actually gay (he was also close with lewis, adrian sutil and nelson piquet jr who also all had speculation over their sexualities so i think that was part of it as well).

i think there was some pop idol-ism in women's treatment of nico back in the day. when he was in formula bmw as the most aggressively blonde 17 year old in existence he was sponsored by viva, which i believe was the german version of mtv, and i think more broadly the whole formula bmw championship was promoted on that channel, making the racers relatively popular with the teenage girls of germany. i also remember seeing an interview nico and some of the other drivers like romain grosjean did (i think in canada 2013 but i can't be sure) where a couple of women in the audience said they were there to see nico because he was so pretty. and if you go into some of the old reddit threads on f1 there are some comments about how pretty nico is and can you blame the camera operator for zooming in so the audience can count his eyelashes? (i believe reddit's consensus was no, you can't blame the camera operator).

i think one of the major differences (other than the different fan cultures) between nico's early years and charles's early years is that charles was promoted to ferrari almost immediately while nico was stuck outdriving fairly terrible cars. one of the reasons why charles has such a large fanbase is because he's driving for a top team, has done so for a long time, and is hailed (rightly or wrongly) as a future world champion. nico never really had any of that hype. he had moments of brilliance in his early years and outdrove all of his cars and teammates (i know mark webber beat him in the head to head in nico's first year but he beat everyone else), but the williams was at best a midfield car and so the hype wasn't really there in the way it has been for charles at ferrari. i think it's also fair to say that as well as nico did in his early career, he was overshadowed by lewis coming into mclaren and immediately challenging for a championship. maybe things would have been different if nico had been able to accept the mclaren seat in 2008, but ultimately he got very few opportunities to show his talent in his early career. and in an era where fandom gravitated either to the challengers (michael, kimi, fernando, lewis) or the playboys (kimi, jenson) nico didn't really fit either mould.

i also think we have to acknowledge the negativity that surrounded nico throughout his career, largely because of his looks. i (and f1blr more broadly) joke a lot about nico causing sexuality crises throughout the paddock, and while it is a joke, i do think there was a lot of very genuine homophobia (and misogyny) directed at nico, especially in his early career. while other drivers, like jenson for example, were thought of as good looking, it was in an aspirational way (aspirational for women to have in a partner and aspirational for men to be, and therefore to get women), whereas nico was viewed as attractive in a "feminine" way, which was seen as the wrong way. he was too pretty, too conscious about it, too effeminate. the britney nickname, fans constantly calling him barbie as an insult, the most attractive woman in the paddock vote where someone (pretty sure nico has said it was seb) voted for him, it was all based in a perception of him as "womanly" and therefore "weak". he was good-looking in a way that men couldn't fantasise about being, because they associated him too heavily with the people, usually women, that they wanted to fuck.

as much as people like to talk about how feral men are for charles now, it is largely in a positive way. when men talked about nico being pretty it was in a derogatory way, rooted in the culture of the time, which was generally quite homophobic and misogynistic. i think he did drive them crazy, but not necessarily in a good way 🤷🏿‍♀️

[tired-gae]

Prompt #27: "That's not the point"

Fandom: Marvel Cinematic Universe

Rating: Teen (for cursing)

No warnings as of now!! (If there is something that should be put here, let me know!)

(No ships either)

Premise: Post-revival (Died in Infinity War, ambiguously is Alive at present time, between Infinity War and Endgame) Loki and Clint have a conversation.

---

Loki had been in the Avengers Compound for nearly a week. It had been a few days since the revelation that the Invasion of New York was not done voluntarily on Loki’s part (and since he’d last seen Barton.) Thanos was a topic of heavy discussion, of course, given the whole ‘Snap’ business. Loki’s almost glad he was dead at the time, if only because he didn’t have to witness that event. 

He and Barton hadn’t made eye contact since he’d returned. This did not come as a surprise, and Loki expected this pattern to continue.

So imagine his shock when, as Loki is sitting against a wall in an unused training room in an attempt to think uninterrupted, Barton walks into the room and sits down mere feet from him. Loki glances over but chooses not to react. Whatever Barton is trying to accomplish, he’s sure it will make itself clear soon.  

He observes the agent quietly. Barton looks tired. He’s staring, eyes half-lidded, at the floor, and appears older than Loki remembers. (Though, he supposed, it had been a good number of years since New York. Mortals aged quickly, did they not?) He takes note of Barton’s lack of weapons. (Visible ones, anyway. He is a spy.) A display of benevolence, perhaps? He can’t imagine it’s a display of trust, considering it all.  

Loki looks away once again. It continues to be silent.  

The silence is expected. Loki can hear the gentle whine of Barton's hearing aids. (An old pair, presumably worn for comfort reasons. Stark had bought (made?) him a pair recently, after deciding the technology around Clint's ears was subpar at best, and that the archer could do better. Loki had yet to see him wear them.)  

The silence is also fragile. Barton is the first one to break it.  

"You too, huh?" 

Loki hums quietly. "In a different way, but... yes." 

Barton picks at the skin around his fingernails. "I had a feeling." 

Loki's head snaps toward him, stunned. He struggles to find words for a moment, mouth opening and closing stupidly. He settles on, "Pardon?" 

Barton's eyes finally flicker over to Loki's, his eyes still half-lidded, tired. "You do realize I remember a good amount of my time under the mind-control crap, right? I mean, it wasn't that hard to figure out." He looked away again. "I don't actually have pigeon shit for brains."

Loki takes a moment to form his response, choosing only to respond to the last part of the statement. "I'm aware. You were the brains behind the stunt in Germany, and subsequently the entire plan, after all. I could hardly think you were stupid." 'A distraction and an eyeball,' if Loki remembered correctly. 

Barton's face twists into a grimace briefly before he shakes it off. "Anyway—the point was, I remember a lot of those few days. I remember you going into a trance-like thing a few times, and coming back from it all shaky and shit. ...Not that you weren't really shaky the whole time. You were weirdly weak, and despite telling us not to overwork ourselves, you didn't really seem to sleep at any point..." He shrugged. "I dunno. After I more-or-less got over it all, it wasn't exactly a difficult conclusion to come to that there was something fishy going on, that you weren't really the big bad." 

Loki stared at the wall opposite them, fingers digging into the flesh of his arms where he was crossing them. It was silent again for only a moment. 

"Oh, and SHIELD's known since forever." Barton added like an afterthought. "I mean, they combed through basically every piece of footage from the invasion, I've seen the clips. They analyzed the shit out of the footage from the collapsed PEGASUS facility, they couldn't really ignore all the signs that you weren't quite... at your best when you showed up." Understatement of the millennium, Loki thought with very little mirth. Barton looked over lazily again, though this time Loki was the one avoiding eye contact. 

"Anywho." Barton continued, quieter. "This isn't forgiveness or any crap like that." 

"I wouldn't expect it to be," Loki agreed. 

"It is... I dunno. An olive branch I guess." He shrugged, crossing his arms in a mirror to Loki to stop himself from picking more at the skin on his hands. "Part of me still wants to put an arrow through your skull, but, y'know, it's a small part." 

Loki frowned. "You would be completely entitled to do so, if you wished. I would not stop you from taking that revenge." It likely wouldn't even kill him, he mused. Nothing seems to be able to do that these days. 

Barton groaned, reaching up to pinch the bridge of his nose. Loki can't help but wonder what he'd said wrong. "See, you say shit like that, and it makes that part even smaller. I mean, dude. I'm not actually gonna fucking shoot you." 

Loki can't say he understands why not, but he can't say he understands much about Barton. (Despite quite literally being in his mind at one point.) None of these mortals make much sense. 

Barton sighed, letting his hand drop again. “Anyways. That’s not the point. The gist is... we’re OK, all things considered. If you catch me using a printed out picture of your face on a dummy during target practice, mind your business. That’s just how my brain works.” He shifts, standing back up from their position of sitting against the wall. “I’ll see you around, terrorist. Don’t die on us again. Still needja for the whole killing Thanos thing.” 

Loki rolled his eyes at the ‘terrorist’ nickname. “Never losing that epithet, am I?” 

“Not a chance.” 

[legitimatesatanspawn]

So I'm Exhausted but on bright side I got holiday gift shopping done early, got a few snacks for later, and got a big sucker burrito for lunch.

And overthinking again on what kind of food is accessible to various fictional characters.

Wish:

Rosas has anachronistic french pastries and sugar-glazed lemon cookies. Do they have other time-breaking foodstuffs? Would they have pizza or would it be too greasy for them? Is there a preferences for seafood given they're an island kingdom? Do they like goat milk cheese (CAN they digest dairy to begin with)? What animals on the island raised for meat? We know the kitchen has a bunch of chickens for eggs so we do know they likely also consume birdmeat. Are their staple diets predominantly one culture or is it a chaotic hodgepodge of assorted cuisines from around the Mediterranean?

Final Fantasy 7:

I had this long weird discussion and commentary on how Midgar handles food with friends a few years back because they can't grow flowers and the area around Midgar is an actual wasteland where only ghost-like monsters seem to thrive. How far do they have to bring food in from and how stupidly high are the prices? How much artificial and instant-mash goop are the people living above and below plate forced to rely on? I've seen bugmeal in IRL organic sustainable stores, is there a cultural divide between people who grew up Below Plate and Above Plate on if bugmeal is a culinary option? Or is it Above Plate that has less access to fresher meat because everything gets priced out of range to just the executives of Shinra itself? Then there's other areas, whether their cultures are fantasy nods to Japan, China, Scandinavia, Germany, Spain, or more.

I could keep going but my burrito is falling apart.

[alarajrogers]

This is long. I've been percolating on it a while.

As usual, when I see a discussion going on that has no nuance, where two sides have been staked out and any suggestion that one side has a point is taken as full support for the other side and everything they do... I feel compelled to try to point out the nuances. This is likely to get me a lot of nastygrams in response, possibly from both sides, but I can't take the lack of nuance any longer.

First, let's begin with this. The government of Israel is committing atrocities. Full stop. There is no way to minimize this. Nothing the civilian population of Palestine has done or could ever do would justify the Israeli government's response here. Israel, as a state, are unmitigated bad guys in this situation. Just like my country, the USA, were unmitigated bad guys for invading Iraq on flimsy pretenses and committing atrocities in the process. A nation doing terrible things doesn't mean the people of that nation are terrible. I pointed this out when the government of Russia chose to invade Ukraine. In democracies, like the US and Israel, the people bear more responsibility than in dictatorships, but as a person who protested the Iraq War and tried to vote out the president responsible for it, I am deeply, deeply uncomfortable with the idea that all the citizens of a democracy are responsible for the actions of its government.

And I am flat out appalled by the notion that non-citizens with no vote should be held responsible; treating Jews as synonymous with the current Israeli government and its awful decisions is like the US rounding up Japanese-Americans and putting them in camps because the Japanese government attacked the US. It was wrong then, it's wrong now, and if you come from an English-speaking country and you're white, 90% chance you come from a country that committed similar atrocities in the course of expanding an empire or colonizing land that didn't belong to it. (I think the Irish, Scottish and Welsh are exceptions; I do not know of any others.)

If you blame Jews worldwide for the actions of Israel, you are a shithead, and if you come from the US, England, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, you are also a hypocritical shithead. France and Germany and Spain, yes, still a hypocritical shithead. Was your nation ever a colonial power? Then if you blame Jews worldwide for Israel's actions, you are a hypocritical shithead.

More to say, possibly more inflammatory, under the cut.

I have seen people I follow saying things like "We should treat Zionists in leftist spaces the way we treat TERFs, they should have no place with us." A lot of "denounce Zionism." A lot of "Zionism is evil."

I have also seen, on the flip side, the disgusting behavior of governments and institutions punishing people for making the argument that Israel should not be murdering Palestinian civilians. This is awful, and inhumane. The people of Palestine have done nothing to deserve this; the existence of terrorists committing atrocities in their name does not justify a civilian population being murdered. As an American, I feel very strongly that I would like to not be murdered for what the CIA did in South America, okay? And frankly, all Americans and anyone from any kind of colonial power should feel the same way, so this behavior where our governments and institutions give Israel free reign to murder civilians is despicable.

But Zionism does not mean "supporting every horrible thing Israel ever did." It means the belief that Jews need and deserve a homeland of their own, that the best place for that homeland is Israel, and as a result Israel has the right to self defense. (Self defense, y'all, is not a euphemism for "murder civilians." In fact murdering civilians usually is antithetical to self defense, because it radicalizes the civilian population against you. You don't fight terrorists with bombs unless your goal is to make more terrorists. Which I actually think Netanyahu's goal is, because he is a right wing war hawk who wants an excuse to commit atrocities against Palestine. That's not good for Israel, but it's good for a right wing war hawk who wants to stay in power.)

I've seen a lot of arguments that Israel are colonizers. Technically it's true but that word has certain baggage due to the motives and behavior of 90% of the world's colonizers. Specifically, when white imperialists marched in to territories occupied by other people, took them over, and killed, enslaved, drove off or ruled over the people who were already there:

The motive was greed, folks. Want, take, have. We're allowed to have everything because we're white. Nothing about "we need this or people will keep killing us."

It wasn't territory they had ever held. Territory associated with them in the lore of the world's biggest religions? Nope. It wasn't territory they'd ever had at all.

They did the colonizing themselves. A third party didn't colonize and then hand it over to them.

Israel's situation is different for multiple reasons.

For 2000 years, Jews have not been treated as full and equal citizens of anywhere they tried to live; those 2000 years have contained so many instances of Jews being murdered en masse, or driven out and all their stuff stolen, I don't think we have an accurate count of how many times it happened.

Anywhere that Jews were treated as full and equal citizens for any period of time, a change in government or in the circumstances of their neighbors could reverse this. Most Jewish citizens of Germany thought of themselves as Germans first, and thrived in Germany, until Hitler stirred up the currents of anti-semitism that apparantly always are present under the surface of a European or European-based society.

It is very easy to argue that the reason for this is that Jews were driven out of their own homeland, and their efforts to keep their own culture during the diaspora made them mistrusted strangers everywhere. Therefore, it's also very easy to argue that the solution is for them to have a homeland again.

This was why Zionists in the 40's were successfully able to get Britain to cede them Palestine. There are very good arguments from the evidence of history that Jews do in fact need a homeland of their own, because anywhere else they live may spontaneously decide to murder them for no reason, because it has been happening for 2000 years and has no evidence of stopping.

Of course, there's a huge problem. Britain didn't hand over part of Britain. Nobody handed over Rome, which forced the Jews out of their homeland originally, or Germany, which had just committed the Holocaust. (These would not have gone well either.) They handed over a territory full of people who had done nothing to the Jews, had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and were not consulted or asked for permission.

Jews sought an ethno-state where Jewish people would be treated as more equal than non-Jews because they're an extreme minority worldwide, and anywhere where they allowed non-Jewish people to become full citizens anytime they wanted, would eventually fill up with enough gentiles that it would again become dangerous to be Jews there. Palestinians were, rightfully, pissed off that they were being forced off their land. So they fought back, and Israel retaliated, and that is how this whole poisonous dynamic began.

Does Israel have a right to the land they were ceded? That is unfortunately the wrong question. After Europe and other places randomly murdered Jews for being Jewish for 2000 years, it becomes really hard to argue against the necessity of a Jewish homeland, somewhere, if you have any empathy for Jewish people at all. Where should that be? Well, there is no uninhabited land on Earth that's suitable for habitation; anywhere would have required throwing people off their land.

This may be colonizing, but it's different colonizing than what white people did. It was done for survival, in the face of 2000 years of threats, and it was done by giving them back land they'd lost 2000 years ago.

There are very few cultures that still exist after being thrown off their land that long ago. Romani still exist, but we really aren't sure exactly where they came from... last I heard the best theory was somewhere in India. Native Americans and other indigenous people displaced by colonization were forced off between 100-500 years ago and a lot of their culture has been lost. This makes it kind of difficult to compare the Jewish situation to anything else. But if there was a movement to give the Native Americans back Montana, and fuck all the white people currently living in Montana, they can move or they can live in the new Native American nation... honestly I do not think the left would object to this. (The right would, they'd screech about it, but a lot of leftists would either be "good for them! fuck those white Montanans!" or "well, I dont think it's right to force people out of their homes, but Native Americans were forced off that land in the first place, so...") The Native Americans lost that territory like 150 years ago or so, not 2000. It's not the same thing. But it is, unfortunately, the closest analogy we have, because no one else managed to hang onto their culture and their memory of having a homeland and the world's memory of it too, for 2000 years.

So. Can you criticize Israel? How can you not? You have to criticize Israel to be a good person because they are murdering civilians. They received a horrible provocation from professional provocateurs who knew that they would react harshly, and that that reaction would fuel their movement, and they did exactly what Hamas knew they would, which is incredibly stupid from the perspective of protecting Israel (but Netanyahu wants to protect his own power, not Israeli citizens) and also morally bankrupt on every level. Arguing that Hamas didn't actually do anything all that terrible is simultaneously untrue and besides the point, because Palestinian civilians aren't Hamas and you can't fight a terrorist group with bombs.

But can you argue, with a straight face, that a homeland for Jewish people shouldn't exist? When Israel's behavior has just caused worldwide antisemitism to spike, and once again, random Jews are being subjected to violence for nothing they did? When we have 2000 years of history of the world attacking Jewish people for no good reason? (I do have some theories as to the reasons, but none of them were good ones.) How do you think Jewish people should protect themselves from antisemitic violence, then? What other options are on the table?

And if you're blaming random Jewish people on the Internet who are not Israeli for the actions of Israel, you are doing the same thing the state of Israel is doing when they blame all Palestinians for the actions of Hamas. Justifying their behavior. Plus, if you come from a colonial power, and if you're on the Internet odds are you do, you're being a sickening hypocrite, because I bet you don't want to be murdered for the atrocities your country has committed. I sure don't! I don't want people blaming me for the Iraq War! I was against it. I don't want people blaming me for Trump! I voted against him. I'm American and my country has done horrible, horrible things that I don't want people to treat me badly for because I also think they're horrible and never supported them... but that doesn't mean I'd be okay with America ceasing to exist.

Jews who support Israel's existence, whether they are Israeli or not, are still not personally responsible for Binyamin Netanyahu being a monster. Israelis aren't entirely responsible for the fucker, given that it is human nature to vote conservative when you live in fear, which is why conservatives fearmonger so hard. Their press probably makes it fairly hard to learn about the atrocities they are committing, just like the American press makes it hard to know what evil things America has done lately. But especially, Jews who aren't Israeli citizens can still support Israel's existence while believing that Israel's current behavior is an atrocity, because Israel was founded to protect Jews from worldwide antisemitism, which if you are blaming Jews for Israel's behavior, you're participating in.

I'm not Jewish. But I find the behavior of gentiles who are demanding that Jews not only reject what Israel is doing (that's fair, it's monstrous) but reject Israel having a right to exist, in a world where America, which took over a continent because we felt like it and slaughtered most of the people who lived here, is never told it doesn't have a right to exist... I mean if you're so out there that yes, you believe America and Canada and Australia have no right to exist, I suppose you're being consistent, but if that is not your position, you don't get to argue against Israel existing. Israel displaced people who didn't deserve it and has treated them like shit ever since, just like every other colonizing power, but Israel, at least, is doing it because Jewish people keep getting murdered for no reason and this has been happening for two millennia. The US has no such justification for existence.

This entire situation is more complicated and nuanced than you think. Not the part where Israel's committing atrocities, that's beyond question. That's horrifying and the world really needs to force them to stop. But everything else -- Zionism, the existence of Israel and its right to self defense, blaming Jews for Israel, yadda yadda -- all that. That is more complicated than you think it is.

[beardedmrbean]

Newspaper Helsingin Sanomat covered the discussion on Finland at the US vice presidential debate on Tuesday night between Republican candidate JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz.

On the subject of school shootings, Walz brought up his experience visiting Finnish schools.

"I've spent time in Finland and seen some Finnish schools. They don't have this [school shootings] happen, even though they have a high gun ownership rate in the country," Walz said on the debate stage.

Walz said he and presidential candidate Kamala Harris were both gun owners and stressed that it was the responsibility of policy makers to ensure the safety of children.

He also spoke about how he was affected by meeting the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. Walz emphasised that change can be made without taking away Americans' guns.

Vance, however, advocated for improving school safety by reinforcing doors, windows and other security features. He also said schools should be given more resources.

"I appreciate what Tim [Walz] said about Finland, because I do think it illustrates some of the weird differences between our own country's gun violence problem and Finland. First of all, we have way higher rates of mental health substance abuse, we have way higher rates of depression, we have way higher rates of anxiety. We unfortunately have a mental health crisis in this country," Vance responded.

HS also noted that Walz is the current governor of Minnesota, a state with a large population of Finnish ancestry, and that a photograph of him wearing a Finland beanie previously circulated online.

Despite the rhetoric praising the Nordic country, Finland suffered its first school shooting in over a decade earlier this year.

Gold going up

Rural-focused newspaper Maaseudun Tulevaisuus highlighted that the global price of gold has surged to new highs. Current prices are reaching near 80 euros per gram, compared to under 10 euros in 2000.

While this has not yet triggered a gold rush in Lapland, there has been notable interest from foreign prospectors.

Mechanical gold mining has ceased in areas like Lemmenjoki National Park, cutting production to a third of previous levels. However, Europe's largest gold mine in Kittilä produced seven tonnes of gold last year.

Kai J. Rantanen, head of the Lapland Association of Gold Miners (Lapin Kullankaivajain Liitto), said that social media and foreign television reality series about gold miners created a movement even before the price had risen.

"Many have since discovered a reality of gold mining that may not suit their own psyche and physique. It requires a strong back," Rantanen said.

Despite strict environmental regulations, Lapland continues to attract gold prospectors, including from countries like the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany.

However, only about 20 of the region's 2,000 prospectors earn a significant portion of their livelihood from gold.

Learning Finnish on the job

The story of Saudi Arabian Mahir Ashraf Khan learning Finnish made it into Tampere daily Aamulehti.

Khan moved to Finland about two years ago, and while the words in his Finnish sentences are at times out of order, his fast and confident speech is easy to listen to, according to the paper.

Over the past couple of years, Khan's Finnish language skills have improved from non-existent to conversational. Khan learned the basics of Finnish in a beginners' course at Tampere University as soon as he arrived in Finland.

However, he conceded that his goal of effortless conversation is still a long way off.

"It would be great to be able to think in Finnish as well. Now I might be able to, if I concentrate," Khan said.

Having grown up in Saudi Arabia, Khan knew he wanted to study abroad as soon as he finished high school.

Out of several options, AL wrote that he chose Finland for a somewhat surprising reason — in Finland there are bidet showers even in public toilets. That's important for someone from the Middle East, laughed Khan, who moved to the Tampere district of Hervanta in autumn 2022.

[alistairian]

dumb ramblings about nuance as I procrastinate writing my philosophy quiz

There's definitely an issue in sorta leftists spaces (lbr, probably every social setting regardless of politics) where discussing nuances is considered taboo, which is irritating, because it totally shuts down conversations that would otherwise be very interesting and lead to better understanding. It's like the fear of being misunderstood/misinterpreted is a valid reason to make sure a particular topic is just never understood because it is too uncomfortable or controversial.

And like, obviously. duh. It's one thing to try and say something that goes against the general consensus and another when that general consensus is considered Good and Moral by your entire social circle.

One easy example that comes to mind (watching a video about it) like 10+ years ago there was a lot of talk online about whether or not the pyramids were built by slaves, or if ancient egypt even technically had a slave force, and the conversation seemed to end with this odd insistence that referring to these labourers as slaves was revisionist (they didn't refer to these people as slaves in their time, they weren't bought/bred and sold as property) or that the argument exists as a smear campaign against ancient egyptians (for instance, bible texts). It wasn't American chattel slavery so it wasn't slavery. Not a whole lot of discussion about how chattel slavery is only one kind of slavery and not even the most common one. If you insist egypt didn't have slave labourers, then you can't really support the argument that the US currently uses slave labour in their prisons. Is military conscription coercive labour? Foot soldiers are paid and fed but the alternative is prison or death. Is working to pay off debts slavery? Is it slavery if it's possible to earn your freedom at some point? If it's a contract? Are these the words of the labourers themselves talking about their willingness and pride in their work or the words of their bosses? There is no clear agreed upon definition for slavery in this context and the discussion is shut down, if you have more to say on the subject then you must have an agenda.

(I assume this isn't true in actual academic settings, I'm really only referring to pop culture/general discussions. That being said, even academia doesn't seem to have a straight answer for this one.)

Or as another example I've been thinking about but never seen discussed: the purpose of militaries and when organized violence is ok and when it isn't. A lot of the same people who condemn war outright are also super ok with others enacting violence when it suits their beliefs. I don't think you'll ever find a leftist that will argue that the allied invasion of France and Germany in the 1940s was unjustified, or that taking arms up against nazi germany and imperial japan was a bad call. We have hindsight to thank for that, but then the story very quickly changes when those same men were sent to korea and vietnam a decade or so later. The very same military went from a celebrated liberating force to a heavily criticized occupying force in less than a generation. Underground resistances use military tactics and commit guerrilla warfare against occupying forces or their own governments, and those actions are ok when it's a population attempting to liberate themselves, but bad when it's a population trying to subjugate others (and liberate themselves to carry out these beliefs). If they succeed and those resistance leaders are promoted to army generals, are they the bad kind of soldier now?

Not to mention that, quite frankly, the way people on this site talk about people in the military is pretty fucked up. I'm so used to it now it doesn't really phase me, and I get where they're coming from (a position of frustration and, yes, ignorance), but the second someone starts going on a rant about how you have to be an evil and soulless murderer or whatever to join a military I just can't take them seriously at all, especially when that same person goes on to celebrate assassinations and resistance fighters or specific hand-selected terrorist attacks. You don't have an issue with violence and murder or people who carry out violence and murder, you just want the violence and murder to support your own personal politics (which are Good and Moral). If you fell for the Other Side's propaganda then that is a personal failing and you deserve whatever harm comes your way. It's ok to join a military and carry out military acts if your hand was forced by some outside invader influence but if the influence comes from your own government or if it's economical then that is a personal failing. (Also, every single discussion about militaries is centred around The American Military. So much so that every instance of plural "militaries" written in this post is underlined with a red squiggly, because grammatically there is only One True Military, I guess?)

I don't know. I just think it's strange how unwilling most people are to engage with ideas/concepts that have been around for the entirety of human history (warfare is even recorded in other species), as if these are things that will go away the more we insist on ignoring them, if only for fear of strangers mislabelling you for wanting to talk about larger ideas/influences surrounding subjects considered controversial.

[anamericangirl]

Hi! I'm sorry to bother you with this. Anyway, my brother is extremely smart and has always studied/known a lot about politics and history. I have/do not. As for the Palestinian and Isreal conflict while I don't know his views completely (as he discussed this with our mom), he's kinda "they're both terrible." And said: "Israelites have also stated that they wish to eradicate the Palestinians." 1/4

"Isreal has not always been their land. When Christians travel to Isreal they're spit on, and that Isrealites all have a pretty high opinion of themselves. They're belive themselves as God's chosen people." This is basically from what my mom told me through him. And I don't know. I tried telling her some of the things I've seen, but politics wear her out so I just mostly get "mmm." 2/4 But now because she listened to my brother, and he does have extensive knowledge she's, like, trying to prove me wrong or something? and saying "listening to brother is super interesting." She sent me a Vox youtube link from 7 years ago about their conflict, and I told her I will not watch Vox. I guess my whole point is, I'm really bad at just reading headlines... 3/4 And I don't even know where to begin for research or which articles are the most credible and least biased (something truly rare). So any help would be greatly appreciated. Sorry for bothering you with what is essentially family drama (I'm just basically ranting, too) and for the very long asks. Thank you for reading these! 4/4 Ah, I lied! 5/4. I forgot this part, sorry. He also apparently stated that the Gaza Strip is like a concrentaion camp basically?

Hello! You're not bothering me at all. I don't mind rants or long asks and this conflict between Israel and Palestine has been going on for centuries and there's a lot of details so it's hard to get all the information regarding the entire history, especially in a couple of days. And also finding reliable sources is very challenging as well because everyone has picked a side and has a bias, but sources with a bias can still be credible and helpful. You just have to pay attention to whether or not they are up front about their bias and account for it in their reporting and even though they have a bias consider if they are giving a fair picture of both sides. And Vox definitely does not do that, so kudos for refusing to watch them!

Though I know a little bit about it I'm certainly not an expert in this conflict so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.

In wars people often want to act like both sides are equally at fault but that's not always the case. Sometimes the lines are blurry and sometimes they're not. Like in WWII it was pretty clear Germany was the main culprit and the allies were fighting to stop the atrocities and end Hitler's regime. In this case, though over the years both Israel and Palestine carry blame, I think it's pretty clear there's one side that's the main problem and the main aggressor and it's pretty obviously Palestine.

This whole conflict is over a piece of land both the Israelites and the Arabs say they have a right to and Israel is literally surrounded on all sides by Arab countries that are hell bent on wiping them off the face of the planet. Palestine isn't even really a country, and that's something even the PLO wants known. They are a group of Arabs from the surrounding Arab countries like Syria and Jordan that came together specifically to fight Israel. It's not like they are just a group of people innocently trying to exist as a country. The sole reason they exist is to destroy Israel.

And I'm sure your brother is smart so no disrespect to him but there's not really hostility towards Christians or even really Muslims in Israel. There is a significant Muslim and Christian population in Israel and when you compare that with the religious diversity of the surrounding Arab countries, including Palestine, it's easy to see which countries are more accepting of diverse faiths. Palestine is over 95% Muslim and they do their best to kick out Jews from the area because they don't want them there.

And yes over the years Israel definitely has done things wrongs and been part of the problem but frankly this conflict could have been over years ago if the Arabs would agree to compromise with Israel. Israel, several times, has offered to compromise with Palestine and give them even most of the target land so they can both live as their own countries, even if they don't like each other. But Palestine refuses to accept any deal that allows Israel to exist. They want full religious control of the entire region and want Israel off the face of the planet.

But regardless of where anyone stands on this issue and who they feel is more justified overall in this conflict, what is going on right now in regards to how Hamas has attacked Israel is not justified and not ok and can't be brushed off by saying "both sides are bad." Even if that's what you think, people should be able to outright condemn the rape and murder of children, even if they are living on the side they don't agree with. Because that's what Hamas is doing. They aren't there to take down the IDF or liberate their people. They are targeting civilians. They are there specifically to brutalize innocent people and destroy their homes. Killing pets for no reason, beheading babies, slaughtering innocent people in the streets, raping women, children and the elderly and taking hostages. I don't care what side a person hates more or if you think they are equally bad what Hamas is doing right now is evil and they are the only side doing it.

I noticed you also mentioned your brother stated that Israel wants to eradicate Palestinians and if that's true they are incredibly bad at it. Why, if they want to eradicate Palestinians, do they do everything in their power to warn civilians before they will be sending missiles and giving them several chances to evacuate the area? If they want to eradicate them that seems counter-productive.

The IDF takes more care than any other military in the world really, to avoid civilian casualties. They send out texts, calls, and leaflets days before any attack telling the civilians where they will be targeting and urging them to get out of the area because they are just trying to destroy Hamas and they don't want to hurt civilians. Meanwhile, Hamas tells the Palestinians not to leave and to stay where they are because they are literally using their own people as human shields. They fire their missiles from civilian structures like hospitals and schools so that when Israel fires back they will kill civilians and Hamas can go "look how evil Israel is killing children" when those children are only dead because Hamas used them as human shields to protect their missiles. And Hamas is constantly firing missiles at Israel. If it weren’t for the Iron Dome there would thousands more Israelis dead.

It's not the same.

And I don't know whether I would call the Gaza Strip a concentration camp but Israel completely vacated the Gaza Strip back in 2005 I believe and Hamas has been in complete control of it for almost 20 years so everything happening in Gaza right now is entirely the fault of Hamas.

Sorry this was so long but I hoped it helped you out at least a little. If you want further information, I don't think you'll find anything without a bias, but what I would try to do is look at it from both sides and use sources that have a bias both ways. Maybe watch the Vox video but also watch the video Prager U did on the conflict or watch Ben Shapiro's break down of it. Those can all give a pretty good overview of what the conflict is but it's when they start talking about who is right and who is wrong that you have to be careful.

[whenwolfsbaneblooms]

Thoughts on Nosferatu

Semi-rambling, not well connected, spoiler-filled thoughts under the cut. Talking about both Murnau and Eggers' take on it. BTW, if somehow you haven't seen Murnau's original version THIS is probably the best version I've found on YT. Yes, it's a silent movie, but it's worth the 90s minutes of your time it'll take to watch.

So overall I really did like the movie, it wasn't super horrory like I feared it would be from the trailers, but it also definitely wasn't the Gothic Expresionist movie of the 1920s. It was fun to hear some of the lines from the original ("Why did you kill the flowers?" (though a bit out of step w/ the original's intention) "You are late...", etc.), also I'm 98% sure Eggers' went and picked colors from Murnau's film and used them as color tones in some scenes; I nearly said 'holy shit' out loud in the theater bc that first scene in Orlok's main hall had the orange-yellow I associate w/ daytime in the og Nosferatu. And yes, Nosferatu is a colored film, any black and white versions you might see are wrong. If I'm honest though I think I might prefer Murnau's a tiny bit more still. There's just something about it that makes me think fondly of it in all it's 1920s sensibilities and views. I do find it funny though that in trying to add more to the plot, Eggers brought, either accidentally or on purpose, more Dracula back into the story, completing the circle, after a fashion. I see you Seivers and Franz. However I could've done w/ out the addition of the Roma (and their slur), it didn't really add much to the film imo, other than 'we're not in Germany anymore.'

I'm not sure how I feel about the 'cure' for Orlok being changed from 'a woman without sin' to 'a maiden fair.' One is perhaps more open than the other, but I think sticking with 'a woman without sin' could've led to some interesting character conversations and what does 'being without sin' really mean, etc. I think I would've settled for 'a woman pure of heart' bc that could also spur some interesting discussions and perhaps a realization from Ellen that 'a pure heart' doesn't mean one has to be utterly good.

I think that of the two, while both are terrifying, I still prefer Murnau's Orlok to Eggers' version. Eggers' is too...human in my eyes. That vampire sounded one wheeze away from death, which I get was the point, but it felt like it was leaning too much into the 'carrier of plague' angle, rather than it being a byproduct of the deal Orlok might have made. I feel they're both products of their time, and thus lean into the tropes and ideas of their times, but there's just something about how Murnau made Orlok (even if he's now memes and jokes to most people) that feels more...idk vampire-like. I'm not sure how I can really explain it beyond vibes, but that's how I feel.

Also while the soundtrack is great, it too feels more modern than I'd want it to be. It would've been fun to hear music more in line with the era, but in a horror bent. The likes of Beethoven, Schubert, etc would've only been 20ish years before the setting of the movie, it's the beginning of the Romantic period, play with that some!

[peppermint-rat]

I just realized it's officially been ten years since I properly left the mormon church. I don't remember the specific date because it was kind of a "I haven't believed any of this for a while why am I still going" but it did happen in 2013.

Escape-the-cult story time?

So, as I can with a few great things in my life, I can trace it back to a silly little comic series I started sort of by accident. It was about Left 4 Dead, specifically about me just barely escaping death by befriending the infected in cartoonish ways. It kind of really blew up unexpectedly. Suddenly I had an audience. I started doing livestreams and made close friends with many of the viewers.

Were those viewers also mormon? You can bet your ass they weren't. There was a good mix of queerness and transness in there. But everyone was still respectful of my mormon boundaries (kept swearing and really dirty talk to a minimum) so I found it really easy to be respectful back. Suddenly I was friends with a lot of people that the church told me would infect me with their wickedness if I tolerated them for too long. But you know what? Spending time with people different than you, seeing that they're just another human, seeing that they can become valuable people in your life even with the traits you're told to fear, it's very hard to keep thinking of them as wicked. At that point, you have to actively choose to sever these relationships that are making you happy and hammer that prejudice back into your head. And a lot of people do that! But I felt SO happy and SO loved, I just couldn't do it.

And all along in the background, my sister lived in Germany at the time and had a lot of time away from the church. This gave her space to read up on the ACTUAL history of the church and Joe Smith... and she was discussing her findings with me. I didn't really want to believe them, but it got harder and harder to explain things away.

Feeling relaxed around my non-member friends, I start joking like "Isn't it weird that I'm straight but I still get crushes on female characters?" And no one really rushes me to admit I'm queer, but they get really excited when I draw "joke art" of myself with those characters. And after a while, the joke wears off. I admit that these images of me with a woman give me happy fluttery feelings. But then my boyfriend at the time and my judgmental church friend and my other sister sees this, and they Don't Like It. But somehow, I don't end up feeling bad about myself - I feel disappointed that these people would judge me for loving this side of myself. I apologized/asked them not to tell anyone but inside went "You know what, I'm gonna start dating her even harder."

Started having/drawing lots more queer ships. Was pretty open about my fictional gay crushes. Flirted with my non-member female friends as much as I did my mormon friends, but they could actually flirt back which got me all flustered. And I loved it. I was worried about being queer in the church, but I wasn't worried about my soul. Letting myself be queer brought so much joy and love into my life, it couldn't have been evil.

Besides, it wasn't like I was gonna go out and have a queer relationship. It was all theoretical, right? Which is fine in the church. Hahaha.

Through a friend I made in my streams, I met someone who lived across the street from me. I knew of them, we were in the same graphics class in high school, and we were facebook friends. And I would look at photos of them and think "Man, that's the most beautiful person I've ever seen." But like. Totally not in a gay way, right? I won't be completely smitten with them when we start hanging out, right? Hahaha?

Nope. Instantly head over heels.

I came out as pansexual to everyone I knew. My mom thought it meant I was attracted to inanimate objects. My boyfriend (who looked at porn constantly and dismissed my insecurities about it) got upset because if I figured this out I must have felt attraction to another person, real or fictional (he got upset when he saw a totally sfw drawing of a pretty Homestuck troll in my tumblr likes). My dad said "I guess temple marriage isn't a priority for you anymore", and when I said "I never thought you would say that to me" he said "Neither did I, but here we are." Again, people taking issue with a thing I knew to be wonderful.

My parents sort of came around, at least to the point that they would not give me direct grief for being in a queer relationship. I broke up with my boyfriend (actually because I accepted that he was never going to join the church and we weren't even really friends, so what was the point). I was briefly in a relationship with a transmasc friend because I didn't feel like I could say no, but it's worth mentioning because since they were also Christian, I thought I could be with them and stay in the church, but when I realized that the church would never accept them into the priesthood because they're trans, it was a huge blow to my faith. Yet another "What am I even doing this for if I don't believe in it?"

We broke up because I was still in love with the person across the street. But here's where the shelf broke, so to speak, on my faith. I knew this person liked me too, but I was afraid to be with them, not only because it would be a queer relationship, but because they were a non-member and didn't uphold church standards, which I'd kind of just broken up with my boyfriend for. Remember that judgmental mormon friend I mentioned? I remember venting to her about this over Facebook IM, crying because I wanted to be with this person so badly, but how could it possibly work out? And she said, "It can't. :("

Oh. Ohhh. How fucking dare you.

It can't? Why? Because the church said so, and obviously nothing in life, not even my own happiness, is as important as obeying the church? I swore a blood oath to sacrifice all my happiness to the church or else I would burst into flames? This girl was big on the mormons-policing-mormons thing. Here I am in pain over wanting someone I felt I couldn't have, and she feels that the most important thing to do is make sure I don't entertain further temptation to disobey the church. That's the issue here - your friend is having gay feelings and they need to remember that's not okay.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Fuck you!

My sister and I decided to tell our mom together that we would not go to church anymore. My sister posted about it on Facebook, and our piece of shit brother (12 yrs my senior, would have been 31 at the time) said "Congratulations, I'm sure your parents are really proud of you." Because he's incapable of saying anything not horrendous.

I started dating the person across the street. And the relationship that "couldn't" happen has been going on for ten years now. Still completely head over heels.

Sssssuck on that!!

In short, yes, having lots of non-member friends can and will lead you away from the church, but not with their wickedness. They will show you how wrong you were for thinking that they were wicked, and by extension, how wrong the church is. And if you pull one thread, the whole thing comes apart.

[koolkat9]

omegaverse gereng (or anyone x germany for that matter)is such an intriguing concept

alpha germany x omega england? it's okay to want to conform and still be different

alpha england x omega germany? defying gender stereotypes is a brave thing to do and not something to be ashamed of

-🐱

🐱 anon I was starting to miss you. Good to have you back!

It may actually be shocking to some to hear I actually really like omega Arthur...I know I know. I can hear you all gasping even though I've discussed this before on this blog. I just love Arthur being an unconventional omega. He hates that he's an omega. He hates he can't be on the front lines, that he's not allowed to get his hands dirty, that he's just a symbol presented like a doll on a shelf (because I really like working with the idea that omegas, specifically omega nations are seen as actually a good thing and symbol of a fertile nation). And I love him learning to accept that yes he is an omega, but that doesn't have to be in conflict with who he is, that it isn't always in conflict with who he is (he learns he actually likes being a parent and raising kids even if he's bad at it in the beginning). That it doesn't have to dictate his life or his position.

In the case of GerEng sometimes I make Ludwig an alpha (another gasp) who like Arthur doesn't quite align with what is expected of alphas. He prefers being submissive and bottoming which makes it hard to find a mate, but he matches up perfectly with Arthur who prefers to dominate despite being an omega. Almost like they were made for each other when. do this dynamic.

The other set up I do with GerEng, that I only recently started doing, is omega x omega. Not as developed as my sub alpha x dom omega dynamic, but I do love unconventional omegaverse dynamics and I do enjoy omega Lud too.

But Lud in omegaverse over all is fun to play with. Either way I write him he is breaking omegaverse stereotypes. If I write him as an alpha, he's a submissive alpha which makes it kind of hard for him to find a match with the ideal pair being an alpha and an omega together. Most alphas only want one-night stands with him and most omegas want him to top/dominate them. Honestly there is probably also some shame instilled in him because alphas aren't supposed to want to be pounded into the mattress, that's an omega thing. When Lud is an omega, everyone expected him to be an alpha given his appearance and how he presented himself (strong, a leader, a soldier, etc.). He doesn't end up showing signs of either secondary gender so it's a assumed he's a beta until boom! Middle of war he goes into heat for the first time and has to be rushed home.

Honestly I find myself more interested in how Lud being an omega ends up pushing him closer to Roderich and Rod becoming a mentor to Lud and how he can make a difference for his people as an omega.

Definetely have considered alpha arthur x omega ludwig though. It's just the dynamic I have the least thoughts on it because I have so many more thoughts on Arthur being an omega and he's an omega in every expansive version of this au I have.

Anyway, I can literally talk about omegaverse all day if given the chance.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

Climate Manufacturing

So I've seen a lot of amazing posts on Climate Change and things alarmists have done to screw stuff up. Here is a video detailing the fact that this whole discussion is profit driven at its core.

And another reason to add to the pile of why I don't believe that 90% of young people need to be activists. Because they tend to be loud, abrasive, and they are the easiest group to manipulate in general. Anything you tell them with even superficial evidence and they just eat that shit up whole sail. They also are not a group that suffers legal consequences.

I take huge issue with that in general because it's a weaponization of the ignorant class. But here is a video detailing the fact that fossil fuels are a ethical to use until we go to a better source like Nuclear.

But I have to go into detail into this. And I'll use Texas as an example. When the huge winter storm happened Solar and Wind was useless. Not to mention, the material cost of solar and wind in general.

Never you mind the cost to people's freedoms. Which is another important detail we don't often look at. Solar panels take about 10-15 years to recoup the amount of emissions it took to make them. Wind is about this same though I think the high end on those is 20 years or more. And that's just for one. If you build 40 of those and it takes high end values to recoup all of that you are looking at 800 years.

So in our push for "Renewables" we are actually doing far more harm than good. Hell Germany CHEERED when they started getting rid of Nuclear. Except in doing so they started moving back to coal. Rather than natural gas which is more efficient and cleaner to use than coal.

If you can't see that there are people with vested interests in the world around you looking for a pay out, who legit do not care about the environment let me point you to this:

Trees of which, actually absorb CO2 emissions. So what I'm hearing is that we need to get rid of plantlife, specifically trees for the sake of "Climate Change". Biden in the US is trying to ban (or might have already) Incandescent light bulbs, gas burners, and is going after home generators next I believe that run on gas. All for "Climate Change".

Now here's the thing. I understand that Solar and Wind are not TERRIBLE. But they also kind of are. The wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. And with Battery technology at a near standstill, and the fact that Solar Panels are NON recyclable, with some of the cheaper end ones being actually pretty dangerous if they break at all because of the chemicals inside. Then you have the problem with wind farms that need MILES of trees cut down in order to make room for them. Meaning animal habitats are destroyed in the process, and they kill avian life as well.

I'm not saying climate change is not real. It clearly is. However the alarmism is meant to make you be afraid. That fear is profit for some company invested in coal, or renewables.

If you really want to make changes to the grid, start advocating for Nuclear. It's cleaner, lasts longer, is safer when managed correctly, and on top of that takes up less space in general. So long story short. If you see a person that's pushing "Renewables" over Nuclear, they are either ignorant, or they are lying to you. Might be time to actually start learning facts rather than being lied to, to fill someone else's wallet. Which IS what you are doing.

[la-cosmonauta-extraterrestre]

One thing missing from the discussions about sustainability and the transition to renewable energy is that different kinds of renewables make sense for different environments. For example, solar panels make a lot of sense if you live in the desert, but they make no sense if you live in Wales (I've seen solar panels in Wales before. If you know anything about what it's like in Wales, you know that someone did not think that through). Meanwhile, in places with a lot of wind, it makes sense to focus on generating wind energy: someplace like Worcester, Massachusetts, which my cousin has described as a "wind tunnel", though I only remember seeing one wind turbine there back when I lived there.

Also, yes, nuclear energy needs to be part of the transition away from fossil fuels, they're much safer than fossil fuels and renewables aren't quite there yet that we can rely on them exclusively. I can understand not wanting to depend on nuclear energy in a seismically unstable place like Japan (and someplace like that geothermal energy has a lot of potential), but if you live in a seismically stable part of the world, especially someplace where the climate is not particularly adapted to a certain type of renewable, then shame on you if you're not expanding your nuclear energy capacity (looking at you, Germany).